 Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Diane. And, um, yeah, I mean, I think, well, first of all, I'm sure, sure, like all of you have read the application, um, that VZ Bay has submitted. And as your as your homework for this meeting, I'm sure you've all done that, um, so that you're so that you know that they have applied for a campus master plan under the plan unit development standards in our unified zoning regulations. And just like what Diane said, I think the sort of the crux of the discussion is that they've asked for a number of uses to be converted from conditional use to permitted. And the difference is a permitted use requires administrative approval, meaning that an applicant can submit an application package to the zoning administrator and the zoning administrator can approve it and issue a permit. Conditional use requires an applicant to go before the development review board for them to hear the application and for the DRB to issue a decision. And conditional use review. There are five criteria that the DRB must find that an applicant needs to meet in order to issue a conditional use permit. And just going over the five criteria, you know, the first one is the capacity of existing or planned community facilities, right on the project. Does it affect those planned community facilities at all? Number two is the character of the area affected as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district with which the project is located and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. Conditional use criteria three is traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Four is bylaws and ordinances then in effect. And five is utilization of renewable energy resources. So in order for the DRB to issue a permit under conditional use, the project before them has to be looked at through these five criteria and not having an adverse effect on those. So that's sort of I think where the crux is. Should these uses be converted from conditional use to permitted within the campus master plan? So I think that's what your discussion is. And I think I think I think open it up to questions, Diane. I have one question I'll just throw out there. I think is it correct that their proposal to change to permit these three assist to permitted uses? Is that only for existing buildings because I was not able to find that information in the application? I just want to make sure. Yes, that's correct. That is true. It's just for existing buildings in their campus master plan proposal. It does specifically state that any new buildings would have to go through the zoning regulations that are that are in effect at that time. Barry? Yeah, thank you for all this explanation. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the rationale behind making these uses conditional in the first place? So, you know, why why they weren't just permitted all along, but are conditional? Right? That's a good question. I don't I don't know specifically what the answer is for the conditional use review as it relates to the mixed use residential district that the campus resides in. Because as I discovered just 10 years ago, that campus was in the high density residential district, which permitted multifamily dwellings. So why did it go from permitted to conditional use? I don't know, to be honest. Some some somewhere along the line and planning commission thought that conditional use needed to be required. Probably because they felt like it would help preserve the campus. That's that's often when I see when conditional use is used. It's that whatever is in existence at the time of that review going into effect is that it's a layer of safety to that prevents change from happening. It can be it is it is a tool that can be used to help with development that is in conformity with the existing built environment. But it is also a tool that can be used to prevent just about anything happening. Sean? Yeah, so commenting question. I think where you said prevent anything happening, I think for anyone who's been following the some of the housing bills in the in the legislature, the state level kind of looking looking at that. I think to the extent that that zoning and permitting and hearings are used to knock back multifamily developments or housing change in general and how the legislature was looking at telling that back. It's been interesting or or preventing communication down that back. But that's a bit of an aside here. The question I was going to ask was with the third of those five criteria you laid out with the traffic was curious kind of what that's measured against like in the case of the college, obviously for decades when you had a bustling college there, you have traffic associated with having full full dorms and you know, class with lots of people living there. Is that the the kind of benchmark that traffic is measured against or is it the last 10 15 years of vacant underutilized buildings when they talk about traffic study is the onus kind of put on if it's seen like is there going to be more traffic relative to virtually vacant. Yeah, which case would be it would seem like that would be hamstringing any any project right for you. We live there's not like if you know, I get the difference of commercial area where you have lots of traffic in and out, but even just fully utilizing the dorms and buildings as housing as they've been used for for decades that wouldn't increase traffic more. Is that seen, you know, as I wasn't sure where that comes in. I think yeah, I think that does a great question. And I think that's one of the things that certainly the DRB has been asking about. I think the convention is that when an applicant goes before a developer review board under conditional use review that in order to address that traffic criteria that the baseline traffic volume would be established just prior to the application. Right. However, you raise a good point and one that I agree with actually is that this campus has been there since 1868, long before any houses were built up there. And so long before automobiles were existed. So what is the correct baseline traffic analysis? I contend that it should be when the campus was fully utilized as a residential campus. And so I think that that baseline would be possibly is much more than it is currently. But it's an educational campus and there it was operating with about 1000 students at one point. And I think that should be considered the baseline when the entire asset is being utilized. Yeah, I certainly agree with that. It seems it seemed crazy to set a baseline just because things were empty and needing to maintain the level of traffic that you had when buildings were empty if you're trying to maximize the utilization of the space. Yes, you have your hand up. I have a question that maybe Sean can answer and then just another general question. But I'm curious about like what the neighborhood feedback has been about this. I guess I'm further enough away that I don't hear quite as much of the neighbors around there talking. And also over the years, the college has kind of picked away buildings anyways with with the new school, the house between the new school and Sean. And then even the the one on the corner over by Kemp Street. Has there been as much pushback when those were converted or used for other things? I mean, to me, I'm not going to attempt to speak for for everyone in the neighborhood. I think in any topic, any any group of people, I think opinions are going to be as as varied, you know, as across across the board. I think we're seeing some of the concerns that I think many of them are public record of letters that have been submitted to to the DRB. I think, you know, I think there's a mix of people. So I'm speaking to the traffic and some indirectly related to the to the college. I've seen comments related to people using College Street as a, you know, bypass for downtown and all the growth and he's Montpelier and so forth. There's one, you know, potential concern in my mind. And that shouldn't be the college or the occupant of the campus's problem, right? That should be a city responsibility if if traffic is, you know, using an area as a as a bypass kind of back to that same point if it shouldn't be a rationale for keeping buildings under underutilized in my in my opinion. But that traffic has been one issue that's come up. There's been issues and I think concerns with hedges and fences or or barriers, I think, where there's maybe been in some of the previous, I don't know if it was under the previous campus master plan or just sort of campus agreements between VCFA and and neighbors about how VCFA would would maintain barriers between those those properties and concern about whether those arrangements would be would be passed on to new new tenants. We've heard some concerns about late night, you know, noise levels if it were to be bars or restaurants or things without door seating. I think some of those are the current concerns that have been been up. I think those have been some of the broad ones, certainly not not exhaustive, but I think those are some of the some of the areas that we've that we've heard. And and less, I think, as it gets back to think as Diane teed things up, really the role of the housing committee being to weigh in on housing, probably not to weigh in on on other topics. I haven't heard as I don't think there's been as much feedback on on housing in particular. And to your other question just, you know, when the house there on Kemp Street was was sold off. I don't think there was I don't recall hearing much concern, you know, about that when that was converted to to housing in the in the neighborhood. Again, not speaking for everybody, but I don't I don't recall issue or concern then. I did read through all of the public comments on the website. And there, there were several addressing, I think it was more group homes, congregate homes, and sort of framing it as possible homeless populations falling underneath that category. I think if you read through the comments, I think what you would take from it is that is that the commenters are specifically saying they don't want individuals unlike them living there. So that's what I took from it. Beth, did you have a general, you mentioned you might have a general question as well. I think I forgot. Okay, no worries. Looks like that's all the questions. I just want to make sure I just want to make sure give it a couple seconds. Okay. So I think really the next step is, you know, determining what our comment should be. And I think I would entertain if somebody has any thoughts on, you know, what that should be. And I would just highlight, you know, we can provide written comments are written. I guess you might call it testimony effectively to the DRB. We can also appear in person and it may be helpful to do both. So I think generating a bullet list and having enough guidance, if we have a written comment coming out of today, I think that would be sufficient. And this is a somewhat narrow issue. So does anybody have thoughts on what our position as a committee should be to the DRB, what we should what we should say about the proposal? Jess. Do we all need to like go through and say what we think? Or is it just kind of anybody chiming in and saying? I think we should just have anybody chime in on this particular, because it's a fairly narrow issue, unless nobody has a thought and then we might have to go around the room and get folks to speak up. But I mean, I'd rather see something happen there than the building sit empty. And I think that the way that it was written and they're talking about kind of keeping some of the historical fields of it, I think is an important aspect. I like the idea of the health professionals kind of in that area. But yeah, I think anything's better than it just sitting empty potentially for years. So would you say you're in support of what how do you feel about the three particular uses becoming permitted uses, which, you know, five multifamily dwelling of five units or more, a group home and congregate living, basically different types of residential uses. I think these are the only three residential uses they've asked that are already permitted uses that they've asked to make make permitted uses. Yes, that's correct. I support all of them. I would agree with Jess. I think I mean, one of my overarching concerns with all proposed projects is the ability for one neighbor to hold it up indefinitely because you know, of whatever perceived concerns they have, whatever concerns they have. And I think having it move to permitted use would move away from that first roadblock of I mean, I think it would allow it would allow the process to move forward and see what happens next. I just think we have a severe need for housing and there's a lot of potential space there to to build it. I think I'm still sort of sorting this out, but what Josh, what you said at the beginning about how these were permitted uses and then fairly recently became conditional uses is speaking strongly to me because I don't I mean, I'm in favor of anything that's going to get us some more housing. I think housing could be a great use up there. That's just kind of my personal opinion. But I want to respect the zoning and the history and all that. But if there is not a compelling reason for those to be conditional uses, then I just just didn't see the mispermitted uses so that there can, you know, different things can happen up there, including housing. Yeah, I agree with with Kerry. You know, I think from from that, I would be very interested to hear what that what that change was in recent years and can, you know, I think the other thing I should have weighed in and before I think would suggest this question about the comments and conversation, maybe less so in the comments, least the ones I've read, but certainly in the sessions over the last year or so. You know, I think there's also been an element that wants it to be a college up there, right? And I think part of that's just wishful thinking, right? No, looking around with Green Mountain College and Southwestern College. I mean, you know, small, small colleges all over the country. That's just not where the demographics and the technology and where, you know, where there is the need for things and housing is where there is is the need. So I think a part of the shift from permitted to conditional a decade ago was in the sense of trying to protect or to have it be an educational institution. And I worry if structures are in place to prevent change that you're just going to have buildings continue to be underutilized and fall more into this disrepair, you know, weight being locked into a need that locked into a use that there isn't a, you know, a need a need for and would much rather have it be tied to housing, particularly being a very prime location in an area that if the college as it's committing to keeping the green available as a real resource for the community would be great to have more housing nearby and, you know, Montpellier needs to be able to take advantage of that of that resource. I think it's one of the few, one of the most walkable, kind of the walkability scores and not needing reliance on a car. There aren't too many of those places around Central Vermont and being that close to, you know, to downtown this neighborhood does have that high walkability score would be great to have more people living there on that. So for all those reasons barring any, you know, additional reason for why that change was made a decade ago, I'd be in support of moving those three uses into the permitted column. Just have a hand up first and then we'll take care of it. I know that the green is not part of what they're talking about, but I think that just making some kind of statement along the lines of wanting to keep the green. I think the green is a really important part of the neighborhood of the city. I know so many kids that use it, so many families that are playing there and in the fall it was really great to see soccer games back up there again. So maybe just kind of, if we ever say something about wanting to keep that as a green space, because I think a lot of people are just assuming that that's going to be turned into five-story units. Yeah. Yes, I'm in favor of moving toward permitted use rather than conditional, but if we're interested in housing, I think we should remember that congregate living and group homes are dependent care of a nature and are temporary, but they're important. There is a need for that, but I don't think that that addresses the need for housing. Well, we'll go to Peter, but I just want to say Stan and Emma, do you want to jump in here or should we go to Peter? I can share my thoughts. I've spent time reading through all the concerns. I've read through the Facebook posts. I think this is a hard conversation to take out of kind of the complete context, right? And I just want to, there's a lot of making music or something else. I can't hear anything, but perhaps others can. Okay, I don't think we can hear that. Leave it in crazy. All right, I think the context is interesting, right? And I think that there's a community that has invested in an institution that is hurting and rightfully so, right? And I want to honor that. I want to respect that. I think they have a right to be heard. I think that the way this is happening is a better investments than made by the community to the resource they have. That's something that resonates very strongly with me, and I really care about the community that cares about DCFA. At the same point, the DRB is not the vehicle to air those complaints, right? There are means to raise those concerns. There's an institution that they can address too. I don't believe that using the DRB to block a conditional use to permit a use that makes it, you know, basically not investable property is the right way to respect that conversation, right? I think if the college has decided to move, if the college has decided to divest from properties, they're actively selling them off, right? They announced today that three of them are being sold off. They sold off 18 acres in 2019, right? They've been doing this. It is our duty to look at our tenants and say, you know, we would like to see if they're going to be sold, if they're going to be used for something different than education. I think the highlight of use is very specifically bound around housing or something that I would support. I think it's an important statement from us. I think it's important for a community to support that for housing. And I don't mean to strip away, you know, a very real issue that's happening elsewhere, but I just, again, I don't think that the DRB is the right place to, you know, block a school trying to leave the area. Thank you. Can you just clarify what you're talking about about the community investment? There's a number of folks who donated money to buildings up there. You know, millions of dollars were donated to some buildings and, you know, the overall, you know, there's investment in time, there's investment in real dollars. The college is in the process right now selling off, you know, the brand new building they built up there. I forget the exact name of it. I should have it in front of me. But they're selling off buildings that students had donated money to help build, right? That certainly feels wrong to me. It doesn't feel like the way a college should operate. But again, the DRB isn't part of that discussion at all right now, right? That's likely going to happen without any DRB review. It's a local buyer who's probably willing to kind of go through the process. But, you know, a buyer for the large buildings that want to convert them to housing. Housing is already a very thin margin activity. A developer wants to put housing in there. You know, any amount of risk pushes them towards a project someplace else, right? Chittenden County is probably an easier place than Montevermata to make a housing project. So I was specifically citing, you know, the concerns that student money was donated in the amounts of millions to your projects that are being sold off. But again, those aren't part of really this discussion. But I am overall concerned about the group that has a really real issue up there. Rebecca? I mean, I think the college ship has sailed. I mean, the college is no longer there. And so if there's an entity that was fund raising for a building for a college that is no that's defunct, what does that mean for the community? I mean, we can't force them to just hold a building in perpetuity. And I mean, I recently went to a DRB meeting where a neighbor was raising concerns about a housing project. And the landlord rightly said, make me an offer by this property. And if I think if, you know, the community, they could, I mean, they have just as much ability to put money together and buy a building. But I don't think we can just say we're not going to, we're not going to move forward because we want things to remain as as they are, because the college is no longer here. So to make a statement that says, well, we don't want change, that's not a viable option. And it's either going to, you know, fall into disrepair or something can actually be done with it. And I think we live in a, in a really, we just, we tend to live in this place where change is always seen as this really terrible thing. And I'll say, you know, what I said at this DRB meeting, Main Street used to be a dirt road. And, you know, we used to not have a lot of the great parts of our town that we do because that we now do because of the changes that have really brought our town forward. And just so I don't really buy that we can't, you know, let's just leave it as it is because that's just not, that's really not an option. And we need housing and we have buildings that are already there that don't contribute to sprawl. As Sean said, this is in a walkable area where we're not building into, you know, when we look at this compared to the Elks Club, it's like a no-brainer to me. Sean? Yeah, I think just, you know, agree with everything in principle, Rebecca was saying. I think the one, one clarification is, let's say, the college is gone or defunct. I mean, they're still here in their administrative offices and to the extent they haven't sold things off. They're not going to take part of what we haven't referred to. There's also been articles about complaints on the, you know, Attorney General's desk about some of these issues that Stan's been raising. But I think, I think that more just backs up Stan's point that there's other places to have that funding, whether it be in court or with the Attorney General or whoever that members of that college community or complaints can have. I think it's not, no, I didn't agree with Stan that BRB isn't the place to have those, those battles. And I think it's the role of the, of the city and us as the committee or the BRB to be prepared and have the structures in place so that when they do move, move on and those issues are settled, however they're, you know, however they're settled, that we can get the most productive use and hopefully get, you know, more housing and, and I think as Rebecca was saying more, more positive change, but change is coming one way or the other. So best to make it as positive as we can. So I'm hearing a good amount of agreement here on a number of points. So I've been keeping notes on those. It seems like it's appropriate to take public comment at this point. I know Peter's here and he's had his hand up. So I want to let him comment. And if you can just give us a sense. I mean, a lot of us know who you are, but still for the minutes, just tell us who you are and speak up. Thanks. Thank you, Diane. Peter Kalman, I live on Mountain Dew Street. I used to live on College Street, but I'm not making comments about this based on living on College Street. I think the conversation you guys have been having is great and I hear a lot of agreement too. So I would just want to add two points that I haven't heard. The first is, yeah, housing. But I think when you guys decide to make a statement, it would be great for you to add that the city and specifically the Department of Planning and Community Development should be proactive in seeking buyers who will build housing there. It's not enough to clear the way. There has to be an active seeking to have that happen. And most of you have heard me say that before. I know that Mike Miller has heard me say that so many times that he hates me. But it's got to be proactive. The second thing I would say is, Josh, did you, I'm sorry, did you want to say something? Okay. The second thing I just want to just clarify with Josh. Permitted, I believe, may be done administratively. But the administrator can go back to the DRB, as Meredith did on the case of the Cody Chevrolet sign, go back to the DRB and say, I'm not comfortable ruling on this. Will you take a look at it? I don't think that permitted means that the DRB is cut out. Just at point of clarification, I'm not often asked an argument. But is that not the case, Josh? I mean, I don't know the whole situation regarding the Cody signs. I can't really put that in relation to VCF. I can tell you what that was. Okay. Meredith, look, the staff is very by the book. And by the book, Meredith could not approve the Cody sign. So she brought it to the DRB, even though theoretically it wouldn't require the DRB, she brought it to the DRB and asked them to settle the problem. And the DRB said, yeah, let them do it. Right. So speaking as a former zoning administrator, where sometimes the regulations allow a ZEA to interpret language, I might be more comfortable as a ZEA interpreting language and making my own decision rather than somebody else. But my understanding is that within the master plan, the campus master plan, the DRB can identify certain uses that can be permitted that would allow the ZEA to issue a permit. So if the ZEA, Meredith or whomever is there and they don't feel comfortable, could they go to the DRB? I suppose they could. I suppose they could. I would hope that they would not. The only reason I mentioned this is that as I think you all know, and I think Sean made very clear, there are probably as many views about this in that community as there are people. And most of them are based on their own personal attachment. And so I think there's been a little bit of hyperbole on all sides. If you do this, you're going to be causing this. If you do this, you're going to be causing that. And I think that what I've heard you guys say, and it sounds, I like what I heard you guys saying, as the housing committee, we don't want to do anything that is going to cause housing to be prevented because one or two people don't want change. That's what I hear you guys saying. And that's a great statement. If you add to it that there needs to be some proactivity and also an understanding that there will be times when there will be some flexibility needed by the zoning administrator. And I think the example that Carol I think mentioned is a good one. I mean, if there was a proposition to have congregate housing up there, you certainly would, I would think the zoning administrator would want to encourage the community to talk about it and actually maybe get behind it and not be afraid of it. I mean, that may be just a little idealistic, but you don't want to impose things on the community. You want the community to ultimately embrace it. Anyway, thank you for letting me sound off a little bit. Jess, feel free to jump in. I think Peter makes a good point about kind of the emphasis on developers that are going to put in housing. I don't know how we could kind of like make that like, you can only sell to somebody that's going to make housing there. Oh my gosh, I lost my thought, sorry. If I think about it, I'll come back. Rebecca? Is it zone commercial? Someone said something about late night outside. That makes me think, are you saying it could be like a bar or like a restaurant? I mean, I guess Anna's Cafe is Cafe App is there now. So the VCFA application requested a number of uses be changed from conditional use to permitted. Restaurants was one of those uses. I think that has generated some comment about people being outside, the restaurant saying being a little bit louder. So that's what I think your comment was relating to. I might jump in here because I haven't shared yet. I think I agree with a lot of what folks are saying. Just looking at the definitions of congregate living in group home, it seems like in some cases those uses could alleviate housing needs for a population, even if it's temporary. But if I'm wrong about understanding what those are, let me know. So even though they may not provide permanent housing, I think they could also be a good housing use. I think there's dormitories up there. I think there's a lot of buildings that I would love to see converted to housing. And I'm not sure whether that'll actually happen, but I agree. It's walkable. It's in a good location. So I'm not really adding much to this conversation. It's up to say that I agree with everyone. And Emma. Thanks. I wanted to say that I support the change from conditional use to permitted for the housing uses. I think that historically, as Josh was saying, the campus is very old and has been housing folks and campuses, history students, but people for more than 100 years. And I think that continuing to provide housing rather than seeing the neighborhood population in decline, which is what we'll see if those buildings aren't used for housing. I think it would be a good thing to continue that use. And I think a lot of the public comments a lot of folks have expressed concern about the fact that there's much more ability to participate and comment through the conditional use process. And I think it's never never should never be taken lightly. Like when you're sort of removing people's opportunity for like the public to comment. But I think in this instance, given that the buildings are existing, I might feel differently if it was just open space and they were proposing to permit buildings and cut out public comment. But these are existing buildings. They have been used for housing. I think the request to move from conditional to permitted is intended to essentially say to developers and potential buyers. We want you to move in the direction of housing for trying to make it easier for housing to go there. Essentially, I think those are all good reasons to be supportive of of the transition. So unless anybody has anything else they want to add or a differing view to to add, I was going to suggest we move to coming up with a list of things to comment on, but I want to let Josh comment. I was just going to just reference something. It sounds like everybody's setting in the right direction, which is great. I think that's that's fantastic. But just to help support the momentum here, the state of Vermont, the last couple of years have has appropriated funding for bylaw modernization grants. And and so, you know, the last appropriation was almost a million dollars 650,000. And the bylaw modernization grant program is specifically designed to create housing opportunities with that is easier, because a lot of our municipality zoning is outdated. And and so they have a they have a great document on their website, it's called enabling better places, a zoning guide for Vermont neighborhoods. And I've used this before when I worked in the town of Randolph. And some of their suggestions in there relate directly to what VSA VCFA is trying to do. So, you know, some of the suggestions this document offers is reduce requirements for conditional use approval and discretionary site plan review, because that has shown to hold up development, because developers, when they see conditional use, they think to themselves, Okay, well, I can't be guaranteed that I'm going to be able to do my project. And so they assess things differently. So this is by the state of Vermont has said municipalities should look at this and eliminate it when we're appropriate. Additionally, they discourage subdivisions, right. And so I think part of the importance of this request is because they would like to get this approved under a campus master plan. Now I think some of the opposition has questioned whether or not this can be considered to actually be a campus because the educational component of it VCFA is really not the principle of use, the principle use on the campus now, right. So how can it be looked at under a campus PUD when now all of a sudden it's all mixed use? I would say that it is should fall under the campus PUD because it's adaptive reuse of the existing buildings. And we don't want the VCFA to have to subdivide all of these buildings off to sell them individually. That would create a situation that the neighbors themselves last summer had said that they worried that they would have to deal with three, four, five different owners. So I think that you know that that's one thing to consider. And I'm trying to think of one more thing here. I just want to bring that document to your attention. It's a good document to look at when you have three hours. So thanks. Does anybody else have any other? Oh, Sean? One question which has a take to the race. It's coming out of blue. But I didn't know the questions come up before that really with what the college has proposed with changing conditional to the permanent for these specific existing buildings. And I think I understand that, you know, at the month that if if any of the other vacant spaces or currently a lot of kind of surface parking lots and things like like that, even if you take out sort of the general agreement or the part of the college and the community and seeing the green as sort of off limits remind to maintain the green. But that aside, you have a lot of surface level parking lots and vacant spaces that, you know, I think are an ever ideal either for maximizing grand list or tax base or for being a walkable community and housing there. And just thinking in terms of with older buildings, you know, converting them, I think part of the issue there is for a developer to take on those buildings is that going to be a big cost, even if we lower these these barriers, which I think is what Peter was was referencing because they need that active courting. And that's a question which maybe we don't want to wait into and maybe this isn't the right place, but I was just thinking about if if not us, you know, then whom to give some of that or where would be the right place to raise some of that question if essentially in courting developers, if having a housing condo building with subterranean parking rather than, you know, surface parking, those those issues paired together with adaptive reuse of existing dilapidated buildings would, you know, would a package like that potentially lead to a bigger tax base grand list, more more housing and more economically viable. And if if it seems like that's adding too much to an already whole place, happy to leave that aside. But that was one question that I kind of was on my mind thinking about those all those parking lots and vacant lots and if the college is looking to move the properties they have, if part of that vision, or, you know, how that how that would normally I guess it's more of a question of would that normally fit in in any way to the permitting or maybe with maybe the question for Josh and what you've seen for any of those best practices or where things are talked about kind of pairing for economic development or building, or is it best just to keep it focused on existing buildings moving from conditional to permitted and dealing with the rest as specific proposed proposals come up. I mean, I understand the question correctly. Do you does the housing committee weigh in on the the the parking spaces in and utilizing them for development? Yeah, I think potentially there would be a question of do we would we add the statement of being in support of moving the existing buildings from conditioning to permitted but on top of that would support if instead of the college keeping and expanding their surface level parking that we would be in support of multifamily housing going into those places with subterranean parking like they're doing in some of them Morrisville and other, you know, other projects that are looking to make space of more more infill and less less surface level parking. Okay, yeah, I mean, I think well, I mean, that would be new development, right? So, I mean, you I think the case would be hard to make to just allow that to be permitted. I can see an easier case to be made with the existing buildings. Yeah, agreed. Yeah, I didn't think it was would be a piece to move into permitted but whether it's a I guess, yeah, it's a question of right is it not moving into permit but is there another vehicle or another way to make that statement or that overture I guess potential developers recognizing that it wouldn't be moving into permitted that they would still have to go through those processes. But I guess voicing at least that there's some communities support, even if just, you know, from the housing committee, if the housing committee is on board with that or you know, some committees support from some place moving towards more housing, more subterranean parking with housing over it, rather than expanding parking lots, recognizing that it's separate but related to the conditional to permanent discussion. I guess I would jump in and say I'm not sure this would be the most effective venue, because I don't think the DRB is going to be, you know, thinking about expanding this CSA's proposal but so much is just responding to it. But I think we could, you know, parking lot that issue and keep it in mind. And also, you know, we wanted to comment on the proposal in other ways. I think that's an interesting idea for the committee to consider. Stan? Yeah, I just wanted to, I think, highlight that the design review committee is very, they're responding to requests to make, you know, variances or build things, right? They're not generally making suggestions or putting requirements on purchases, right? I think if we wanted to address the board of VCFA or city council or the mayor and suggest like communications happen, I think those were probably more appropriate vehicles. I also think that those properties up the hill are likely fairly expensive. I don't think someone's going to come along and, you know, purchase a building for a million bucks and then level it and put a garage in, right? It's probably not we're going to see in our community is these large buildings being removed and being redeveloped. But that's all outside the scope, right? I think our scope here is very specific to the college wanting to open up an opportunity for a potential seller that may already be identified. There could be a seller, you know, a buyer sitting in the wings that's done unrealistic expectation. But it's very likely that without knowing that they can use this for housing, that it may not be purchased for that. It could sit dormant. It could be, you know, years before anything happens to it. They may not be able to sell it at all, right? Again, I don't think any of that's really in with the DRB, really part of the discussion. I think our role with the DRB is to specifically say that we support or potentially our role is to say we support the permitted use that is housing. And it would be housing in the, you know, as is there could be no external changes about permitting. They can't change the parking lots without permitting, right? There'd be places for the community to discuss those things. And I think that's our scope here is to say, you know, as a group frame that and provide it, if we all agree with that, and probably not jump too far into like recommendations to the VCFA board or the city, or if we do do that, do it separately. So I'd like to propose moving to considering specific language after Emma comments, if everybody's okay with that, because if, you know, if we can, we don't have to take two hours of our time, that's good. I think we're all, I'm hearing a lot of agreement. So, Emma, why don't you share your thoughts? Yeah. And I think it's also, I guess I'll just preface by saying, I think it's also fine for us to like move towards a more succinct comment, but I did want to just respond to Sean and say that like, I was also thinking about parking and relationship to housing and this plan in the application, they do talk about expansion of parking based on like what the mix of uses ends up being. And with housing, Josh, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's one parking space per unit. And so the VCFA development based on the mix of housing could run into some problems where they need to expand parking. All of that is to say that I feel like I don't know enough about the more progressive ways that people are encouraging housing construction and walkability. There's probably ways that we could comment and talk about not needing a one for one one parking space per one unit as a way to encourage more development of housing and to tilt developers in that direction, especially given the walkability of the site and how great it is in terms of proximity to downtown and for neighborhoods. But I feel like that might be the scope of our ability tonight. But I like the direction that you're thinking and I also, I think you're right to think about that. And at the same time, I'm totally fine with focusing if we want to more specifically on just the question of the conditional to the permitted uses in the interest of time and maybe not having a whole lot of additional extra time to research this for the next hearing. Sean, does that work or do you have a response? Yeah, real quick. I was just going to say that the city does allow for an exemption for that one to one if you can make the case. I think either walkability or buses going nearby which this neighborhood does have. So there is already a vehicle in place if they're moving in there for multifamily housing and wanted to make the case to not put in one for one parking with those rationales. Sounds good. Okay. So I'm going to share what I've put together based on what everybody said. And then, you know, I think once we start looking at this, people might have specific comments on that or ways to integrate things that they think folks would agree to. So this is what I think this is the right one. Okay. All of a sudden, I can't see everybody but you can, oh, there you go. Okay. Hopefully it'll tell me when people raise their hand. But can you all see this or should I make it bigger? Yep. Okay. It's definitely not like I think probably as typos and things, sentences that aren't complete. But this is the general sense I got. So basically this would be our overarching statement and these are some of the reasons. I think about how to say this about really sure. I just have to apologize. I have been going since 8.30 this morning and I've had about a half an hour free time. So my brain is not functioning well as you can tell from how kind of all over the place I am today. But I just want to raise the point that the more permanent long-term housing we have, the better off we'll be. And if we have more long-term housing, there will be less, especially if it's affordable, there will be less homelessness, there will be less need for transitional housing. And I wonder if that is a, if the transitional housing is the concern of neighbors, can we just raise that as a point that we, I feel like in thinking about the short-term housing, the short-term rental concepts, I think our overarching goal there is to create more long-term housing that people could stay in and move into as a permanent place to live. And so I'm feeling a little cagey about the transitional nature and I think we should put more emphasis on long-term housing period as a housing committee. I'm just wondering what after group home, what is major, the beginning of the third line and what you've written? It's in the definition but I don't know without looking for that. It's from the multiplayer zoning guidelines, right? There's a big table that says the things you can use things for by area. I'm sure it's defined. Well, but I don't know what it means. Shash, do you have the definition? Yeah, I think we just need to pull up the definition. I think we should be clear in our statement. That's fair. So it is. So the definition will be in the zoning regs but let me just read it off once I find it. That's group home. Yeah. Okay. Not in there. Maybe it's under major. Okay. I'm shocked. I can't find a definition for group home in the zoning regulations. Well, then I think we're looking at Josh. I'm looking at Josh. Yeah, so group homes and residential care homes operate under state licensing or registration that you don't need to. It's not a definition. Yeah, usually there. Wait, let me go back here. The fact that it's called major is part of its designation for whatever reason in the zoning regs. Yeah, but I don't think in a statement that we make, we should have a word that that I don't understand. I mean, it should be clear. Five units or more defines is a qualifier for multi-use dwellings. Major means nothing to me on group home. And congregate living, I'm sure, is defined someplace. I think I know what that is. So I think group home or residential care home that operates under the state licensing or registration is considered just group home up to eight residents. So over eight residents, I'm assuming that's what major is based on section 3107 of the development regulations. I mean, one thing we can do is just take out the reference to major if that is what's. So the zoning regs do, the major is a size of project. It's defined in section 3210A. There's a series of things that classify a project. A project in general is major or minor. It's not a group home designation. It's an overall project classifier. So it's things like construction of new principal buildings, major renovations of existing principal buildings, 10 new parking spots, or 2000 square feet of impervious surface, construction of accessory structures with a footprint more than 2000 square feet, construction of addition more than 2000 square feet. So it's setting a size for the class, the size of the project in general overall, but then apply to group home as a context there. I'm happy with the word gone. I mean, what if a developer wanted to, would condos be multi-use dwelling? They're connected. Essentially, right if they are connected by the wall, if their walls are connected, isn't that, is that the definition of a multi-family dwelling, Josh? I mean, I consider somebody who says multi-family that they're referring to apartments. Well, but this is multi-use. I don't know that that's, I mean, a duplex is a multi-unit dwelling. Multi-unit dwelling, sorry, it should be unit. I think a multi-unit dwelling is anything with five or more living units in one building, right? Well, it's clarified with use now being unit. Okay, sorry, that was typo. I started to try to capture what Rebecca, what you were mentioning. More permanent housing we have, the better off our community will be and better able we will be to provide housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. Across, I mean, individuals across all, with all housing needs, it could be pretty broad. And I don't see anything in there, but there's, and I've started to glaze over so I'm not sure what if it's, I'm missing it, but there's nothing about affordability in there. Right. Just an emphasis on affordability or just mentioning it somewhere in there. Yeah, I don't think we talked about it. I don't think it's part of their proposal, but if people wanted to... Do we want to talk about just an overarching statement of affordable accessible multi-unit condos, blah, blah, blah, long-term? How about, I'm not sure how to... Can we say it has a severe need for long, permanent, long-term, permanent housing or permanent housing, long-term, affordable? I mean, if this is a statement, it doesn't have to be attached to, you know, this specific project, but popular is a severe need for long-term, permanent, affordable housing, permanent and affordable housing. I think Rebecca's comment is important. I think that it should be part of it. Affordability. Permanent part. Yeah. Okay, I captured that one. Here we go. Oh, it's in the first statement now. Montpelier's severe need for long-term, permanent, and affordable housing. It's a strategic goal of city council and a recognized need in our community. I don't think we need to say long-term when we say permanent. Okay, I agree. It's just... Yeah, duplicate it. Sean? Yeah, I agree with those points. I guess I'm just looking at two, I think, from the standpoint of, I mean, for in support of moving the permitted use of the multi-unit dwellings, the group home and congregate living, since that's the vehicle we're allowed to move it into while recognizing that congregate living isn't the permanent way. Is there a contrast or an issue with that? Or would it be cleaner about moving this first two? I don't know why we would be against temporary housing as a housing committee. Yeah, I don't think we're against it either. I guess just a question on that mind of those, if we're then saying permanent and affordable. Maybe that's, I guess maybe it comes into where Peter was raising to of going out, right, maybe for the in particular, right? I mean, I think that's maybe beyond, maybe it's the way we have the statement. Does congregate living refer to like elderly living as well? What I was wondering, like West View Meadow type. You know, is one of the West View Meadows or the place up in Berlin by the Berlin Mall, the new, the new elderly? Those are permits. Those are, those, just of those would be considered multi-unit dwellings as opposed to. Yeah, congregate living is defined in the zoning ranks. It means one or more structures intended to provide housing and where one of the living facilities for residents, such as living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation, is either provided to or shared by the residents. And so like, like a co, like the co-housing project up in Burlington or down in Heartland, would those be considered congregate living? If they have, if they have shared, if they have shared dining spaces? The kitchen is the key, like if there's, if there's someone, if there's a common kitchen, common dining area. I would go into the planning, planning commission. Some meeting yesterday with Mike Miller and he defined congregate living as there's probably like five tests. Like, do you have the ability to leave like unimpeded in your own bathroom, your own kitchen? I think congregate living is even like, if five people share, share an apartment, that technically becomes congregate living informally. But it's, it's formally rented out to have to also be congregate living. So for a lot of the dorms, it would be an easier conversion presumably to congregate living, whether you're talking about a co-housing situation or another kind of situation where there are, you're not trying to fit a dining space and bathroom into every room necessarily. Right. I think that Gary Holm might be considered to be congregate living. That's helpful. One general, so I like the way, I like the direction is going, kind of having that first statement first and then having those subsequent bullets where you say in, you know, in particular. So I think that's sort of the signalage maybe to the way Peter was referencing before the one piece to kind of clear the way. And then the second piece we'll we're making the statement to the extent that we're actively looking out for that. So certainly our preference would be somebody that would come in and convert this to permanent and affordable housing instead of doing, try to picture those buildings being a major renovation that would turn them in to say million dollar penthouse on those. So I think still worth, still worth directly stating that that we like the idea of them being many and affordable. I could also see, I mean, I could also see it being turned into like a, just a long-term care type situation. The one, I was just thinking the one thing I haven't captured here is, I don't think discussed barriers, which I think Carrie brought up. Looks like she maybe had a hop off, but is in support of removing barriers. Oh, I already put that above. Sorry, it's in the first sentence. I'm also very tired. Is there anything here that I haven't captured or anything here that people don't like? I feel like I want to have a third thing in this bullet, but I can't think of what to add there. I respect and I appreciate the point Josh made about previous zoning. I don't know that it's material here. I'm not set against it. I would probably exclude that. It just doesn't seem relevant. The second bullet point saying that the conditional uses were previously approved. I don't know why those were changed. I don't know the context. That doesn't seem really part of the argument. I think in my mind that the state of support that these be used for housing stands alone, no matter what the previous conditional use was. But not a strong feeling about that. If I had my way, I would strike it, but it felt like it. I like it. What about changing it to, this has something about, and I really have hard time saying words together, but a long history of, there's a long history of this project, of this property being in active use. It's not like it addresses sprawl. I mean, I feel like that is a huge selling point for anything that's existing and walkable. It's already, the trees have already been cut. The house is already there. I am having a really hard time putting into an actual supplement to the sentence that makes sense. Yeah. Housing should be a high priority for this area. It is walkable. These are existing buildings and incorporating more housing here does not contribute to sprawl or, I would say, habitat. Habitat degradation. Habitat. Yeah, habitat fragmentation. Fragmentation. Is that okay with everybody? Habitat. That's good. Yes. And above where you said this area is long history of this property being in active use. So maybe I can't support housing. We can get that. Because I think conveying, communicating the point that we discussed. Residential use. Yeah. Yeah. So the reason I would, it sounds like Carol would really like this statement. And one of the reasons I added it about the conditional use these being historically permitted was because I think that three people may be raised that there. It seemed like a number of people raised that as a strong sort of reason why we would be more okay with this conversion here. Not a new thing. Yeah. I'm good with that. Just like, okay. I mean, it's not like perfect, but it's late. Is there any chance we can just like do a conditional vote and then just, I would love to read this when I'm not, I'd love to read this in the morning. Yeah, I think, I think we could do this a couple of ways. I think if we want to really change this, we'll have to have another meeting. However, I think if we want to take this and sort of designate a couple of people to provide this statement. And if they feel like, you know, fleshing out some of these with data, like we have a housing need, do we have data on hand to provide that would be appropriate. But I think it's important for us to have the substance decided tonight because of the open meeting laws and just restrictions on us. I think there's some kind of upcoming meeting where all the committee chairs have to attend about open meeting laws. So I feel like they're going to read us the riot act and I want to make sure we're acting within our authority here. Do we want to mention something about the number that Josh talked about in the last meeting about 400 that are target housing expansion is 400 units, something to that effect. Yeah, is it just I don't have that data off stuff in my head, but do we have, is there specific numbers we could reference? So based on Vermont Housing Finance Agency, they came out with a report report that said that Vermont needs 30,000 to 40,000 new units of housing created by 2030 to meet our needs, the state's needs. If you look at that and look at a per capita responsibility Montpelier needs to create 300 to 400 to contribute to that. So seeing how we are on a large municipal wastewater system and centrally located, I would say the actual number should be more like four to 600. Yeah, I'd agree with that, that's fine. I mean, where that that report is one mechanism, but it's here developing it, what we can support with our public. Four of them too, right? I mean, it's been conversations, but what in the public safety side can sustain another couple of thousands. Residents, what the infrastructure can sustain and knowing, knowing the heavy tax burden we have and the infrastructure issues they get a lot of conversation to that are also expensive, that those expenses will be lighter if they're spread among more residents up to the capacity that our public safety and water sewer infrastructure can can sustain. So if if we can, I would think those would be bigger in my mind for pushing more towards that 600 or higher. If that infrastructure will support that to spread the tax burden. Stan? How many people do we need for quorum to vote on this? Six. We have seven. Okay. Can I drop? Yeah. Well, why don't we vote? Does everybody agree? Or does anybody want to make a motion that this be the substance of this? Carol? I would move that we submit this as a statement from the housing committee to the city, you know, proposing to move from conditional to permitted use for housing. And then that, sorry. Okay. And that if we need data that whoever is presenting or whatever could speak to that at the time, or we could bullet it at the bottom. But I move approval of this as our statement. Does that allow for some minor edits outside of this committee? Or are we thinking we want to submit this as is? Just want clarification. Well, I would be agreeable to minor edits as long as the content of what we submit is what this represents. We have a second? I have a second. I think that it's like just basic readability, major changes. Making a complete census. I think the spirit is pretty clear, right? I think if we're making minor changes in ordering, I don't know the language. I think I'm okay with that. I think major changes like adding new bullets would be something I'd want to come back. So I third. I think that's exactly what we have the ability to do. It has to be within the scope of this. I heard a second. So all in favor, let's just do raise of hand because it's easier on the screen. Everybody raise your hand if you're in favor. Oh, Stan is raising his hand virtually. So that's everybody. So it's unanimous. I'm just going to, I just need to quickly write down everybody who's here right now. Sorry. I know Stan has to jump off. So thank you. We didn't have to go to 930. I really appreciate it. And who who's the meeting's tomorrow? Is it tomorrow? Does anybody want to testify? Yep. Does anybody want? It's on Monday. It's on Monday. Next Monday? Yeah. It's on Monday. Okay. Well, I won't be here, but does anybody else want to actually be present at that meeting and provide the statement? We can also submit it in written comments. But being there is a good experience. And I think it would potentially also carry a little more weight if anybody has that interest. Hi, if no one else will, I will go and just read. I think it's Tuesday. I have it down as Tuesday. How is it Tuesday? So it's the holiday Monday. Yeah, I had it for Tuesday as well. Confirm for us. I can be there. Sounds like Rebecca. I mean, is anybody interested in doing that? I don't want to. I mean, the same goes with Rebecca. I'd be willing to be there. If someone wanted to do it, I would defer to them. If Rebecca wants to do it, I'll flip the coin. I will not. I won't jump in front of that bus. If you want to do it, you go. I will volunteer if no one else wants to do it. But I don't mind going, but it's not like. Thank you. Okay. Sounds like we can decide this after the fact. Thank you. I think we can let everybody go for tonight. I don't think anyone's going to like us when we say this, but. And I'll take responsibility for writing this up. And I'll reach out to Rebecca for some edits. And if anybody else has edits, you know, we can do the minor edits. That's out of this. Well, thank you to the committee and Diane. Thanks for your work on this tonight. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thanks.